Audit of postoperative chemoradiotherapy as adjuvant therapy for resected gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma: An Australian multicentre experience

Background: Improved disease free and overall survivals were seen in curatively resected patients with gastric and gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma treated with the Intergroup 0116 (INT 0116) protocol of postoperative adjuvant chemoradiotherapy compared to surgery alone. This protocol has not been widely adopted in Australian centres because of perceived risks of toxicity. Methods: We reviewed the case records from 45 consecutive patients treated between May 1998 and August 2003 with the INT 0116 protocol and variations at five Australian institutions. The median age was 61.5 years (range 38-79). Twenty-nine patients had gastric and 12 had gastroesophageal junction primaries. All patients had attempted curative resection, however, seven had involved microscopic margins (R1 resection). Thirty-five had regional node involvement and none had evidence of distant metastasis. Results: The overall National Cancer Institute - Common Toxicity Criteria (NCI-CTC) version 2.0 grade 3 and grade 4 toxicity rates for all patients were 37.8% and 4.4%, respectively. There were no treatment related deaths. Gastrointestinal grade 3 toxicity was observed in 20% of patients, while haematologic grade 3 and 4 toxicity was observed in 17.8%. Toxicities experienced led to chemotherapy dose reductions in 22 patients and dose delay in 11 patients. Seven patients had a delay in radiotherapy and two did not proceed with radiotherapy. At a median follow up of 16 months (range 5-35) from surgery, 28 patients have relapsed (six with local recurrence alone) with 22 deaths occurring, all but one caused by cancer. Conclusion: The INT 0116 protocol is a safe and feasible schedule in a multicentre setting with an acceptable rate of toxicity and is an appropriate adjuvant treatment option for high-risk resected gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.

Clinical practice guidelines for the psychosocial care of adults with cancer

Clinical practice guidelines are increasingly being developed in medical settings to provide evidence-based recommendations to guide the clinical care of patients. The development of Clinical practice guidelines for the psychosocial care of patients with medical illness is a newer initiative, and more complex as the target audience includes health care professionals from diverse backgrounds. In Australia, the National Breast Cancer Centre and National Cancer Control Initiative have collaborated to develop Clinical practice guidelines for the psychosocial care of adults with cancer, funded by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. This paper outlines the development of these guidelines in the international context, gives an overview of their content, and describes strategies for their implementation and evaluation. Copyright (c) 2005 John Wiley C Sons, Ltd.

Clinical practice guidelines for the psychosocial care of adults with cancer

The ‘Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Psychosocial Care of Adults with Cancer’ was launched by the Federal Minister of Health on 14th August 2003.1 Developed by the National Breast Cancer Centre and the National Cancer Control Initiative and approved by the National Health and Medical Research Council in April 2003, these guidelines are the first of their kind for health professionals who treat, or are involved with cancer patients at all stages of care from diagnosis, through to treatment and palliation. The guidelines are aimed particularly at general practitioners, and cancer specialists such as radiation and medical oncologists, surgeons, nurses, social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, physiotherapists and occupational therapists. The guidelines are based on comprehensive and systematic reviews of the international research literature and an extensive consultative process to ensure their clinical relevance. They were informed by a multidisciplinary steering group with expertise across a wide range of cancers and health professions and included consumer representation.

Polymorphisms in glutathione S-transferases and non-melanoma skin cancer risk in Australian renal transplant recipients

Caucasian renal transplant recipients from Queensland, Australia have the highest non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) risk worldwide. Although ultraviolet light (UVR) exposure is critical, genetic factors also appear important. We and others have shown that polymorphism in the glutathione S-transferases (GST) is associated with NMSC in UK recipients. However, the effect of high UVR exposure and differences in immunosuppressive regimen on these associations is unknown. In this study, we examined allelism in GSTM1, GSTM3, GSTT1 and GSTP1 in 361 Queensland renal transplant recipients. Data on squamous (SCC) and basal cell carcinoma (BCC), UVR/tobacco exposure and genotype were obtained. Associations with both NMSC risk and numbers were examined using logistic and negative binomial regression, respectively. In the total group, GSTM1 AB [P = 0.049, rate ratio (RR) = 0.23] and GSTM3 AA (P = 0.015, RR = 0.50) were associated with fewer SCC. Recipients were then stratified by prednisolone dose (less than or equal to7 versus >7 mg/day). In the low-dose group, GSTT1 null (P = 0.006, RR = 0.20) and GSTP1 Val/Val (P = 0.021, RR = 0.20) were associated with SCC numbers. In contrast, in the high-dose group, GSTM1 AB (P = 0.009, RR = 0.05), GSTM3 AB (P = 0.042, RR = 2.29) and BB (P = 0.014, RR = 5.31) and GSTP1 Val/Val (P = 0.036, RR = 2.98) were associated with SCC numbers. GSTM1 AB (P = 0.016) and GSTP1 Val/Val (P = 0.046) were also associated with fewer BCC in this group. GSTP1 associations were strongest in recipients with lower UVR/tobacco exposure. The data confirm our UK findings, suggesting that protection against UVR-induced oxidative stress is important in NMSC development in recipients, but that this effect depends on the immunosuppressant regimen.

Clinical outcomes from skin screening clinics within a community-based melanoma screening program

Background : Within a randomized trial of population screening for melanoma, primary care physicians conducted whole-body skin examinations and referred all patients with suspect lesions to their own doctor for further treatment. Objective: Our aim was to describe characteristics of skin screening participants, clinical screening diagnoses, management following referral, and specificity and yield of screening examinations. Methods: Information collected from consent forms, referral forms, and histopathological reports of lesions that had been excised or undergone biopsy was analyzed by means of descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 16,383 whole-body skin examinations resulted in 2302 referrals (14.1% overall; 15.5% men, 18.2% >= 50 years of age) for 4129 suspect lesions (including 222 suspected melanoma, 1101 suspected basal cell carcinomas [BCCs], 265 suspected squamous cell carcinomas [SCCs]). Histopathologic results were available for 94.8% of 1417 lesions excised and confirmed 33 melanomas (23 in men; 24 in participants ? 50 years of age), 259 BCCs, and 97 SCCs. The probability of detecting skin cancer of any type within the program was 2.4%. The estimated specificity of whole-body skin examinations for melanoma was 86.1% (95% confidence interval = 85.6-86.6). The positive predictive value (number of confirmed/number of lesions excised or biopsied x 100) for melanoma was 2.5%, 19.3% for BCC, and 7.2% for SCC (overall positive predictive value for skin cancer, 28.9%). Limitations: Follow-up of participants with a negative screening examination has not been conducted for the present investigation. Conclusions: The rate of skin cancer detected per 100 patients screened was higher than previously reported and men and attendees older than 50 years more frequently received a referral and diagnosis of melanoma. The specificity for detection of melanoma through whole-body skin examination by a primary care physician was comparable to that of other screening tests, including mammography.